Rosalind P Candelaria1, Beatriz E Adrada2, Wei Wei3, Alastair M Thompson4, Lumarie Santiago5, Deanna L Lane6, Monica L Huang7, Elsa M Arribas8, Gaiane M Rauch9, W Fraser Symmans10, Michael Z Gilcrease11, Lei Huo12, Bora Lim13, Naoto T Ueno14, Stacy L Moulder15, Wei Tse Yang16. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: rcandelaria@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: beatriz.adrada@mdanderson.org. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Unit 1411, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: WWei@mdanderson.org. 4. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Unit 1434, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: AThompson1@mdanderson.org. 5. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: lumarie.santiago@mdanderson.org. 6. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: Deanna.Lane@mdanderson.org. 7. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: mlhuang@mdanderson.org. 8. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: earribas@mdanderson.org. 9. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: gmrauch@mdanderson.org. 10. Department of Pathology, Unit 085, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: fsymmans@mdanderson.org. 11. Department of Pathology, Unit 085, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: mgilcrease@mdanderson.org. 12. Department of Pathology, Unit 085, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: LeiHuo@mdanderson.org. 13. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Unit 1354, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: BLim@mdanderson.org. 14. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Unit 1354, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: nueno@mdanderson.org. 15. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Unit 1354, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: smoulder@mdanderson.org. 16. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Electronic address: wyang@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Different molecular subtypes of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have previously been identified through analysis of gene expression profiles. The luminal androgen receptor (LAR) subtype has been shown to have a lower rate of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy than other TNBC subtypes. The purpose of this study was to determine if the imaging features of TNBCs differ by AR (androgen receptor) status, which is a surrogate immunohistochemical (IHC) marker for the chemoresistant LAR subtype of TNBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This sub-study was part of a clinical trial in patients with stage I-III TNBC who were prospectively monitored for response while receiving neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) at a single comprehensive cancer center. This interim imaging analysis included 144 patients with known AR status measured by IHC. AR-positive (AR+) tumors were defined as those in which at least 10% of tumor cells had positive nuclear AR staining. Two experienced, fellowship-trained breast radiologists who were blinded to the IHC results retrospectively reviewed and reached consensus on all imaging studies for the index lesion (i.e., mammogram, ultrasound, and breast magnetic resonance imaging). The index lesion for each patient was reviewed and described according to the fifth edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. Logistic regression modeling was used to identify imaging features predictive of AR status. p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Univariate logistic regression models for AR status showed that AR+ TNBC was significantly associated with heterogeneously dense breast composition on mammography (p = 0.02), mass with calcifications (p = 0.05), irregular mass shape on mammography (p = 0.03), and irregular mass shape on sonography (p = 0.003). Multivariate logistic regression models for AR status showed that AR+ TNBC was significantly associated with heterogeneously dense breast composition on mammography (p = 0.01), high mass density on mammography (p = 0.003), and irregular mass shape on sonography (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: The imaging features of TNBCs differ by AR status. Multimodality breast imaging may help identify the LAR subtype of TNBC, which has been shown to be a subtype that is relatively resistant to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: Different molecular subtypes of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have previously been identified through analysis of gene expression profiles. The luminal androgen receptor (LAR) subtype has been shown to have a lower rate of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy than other TNBC subtypes. The purpose of this study was to determine if the imaging features of TNBCs differ by AR (androgen receptor) status, which is a surrogate immunohistochemical (IHC) marker for the chemoresistant LAR subtype of TNBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This sub-study was part of a clinical trial in patients with stage I-III TNBC who were prospectively monitored for response while receiving neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) at a single comprehensive cancer center. This interim imaging analysis included 144 patients with known AR status measured by IHC. AR-positive (AR+) tumors were defined as those in which at least 10% of tumor cells had positive nuclear AR staining. Two experienced, fellowship-trained breast radiologists who were blinded to the IHC results retrospectively reviewed and reached consensus on all imaging studies for the index lesion (i.e., mammogram, ultrasound, and breast magnetic resonance imaging). The index lesion for each patient was reviewed and described according to the fifth edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. Logistic regression modeling was used to identify imaging features predictive of AR status. p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Univariate logistic regression models for AR status showed that AR+ TNBC was significantly associated with heterogeneously dense breast composition on mammography (p = 0.02), mass with calcifications (p = 0.05), irregular mass shape on mammography (p = 0.03), and irregular mass shape on sonography (p = 0.003). Multivariate logistic regression models for AR status showed that AR+ TNBC was significantly associated with heterogeneously dense breast composition on mammography (p = 0.01), high mass density on mammography (p = 0.003), and irregular mass shape on sonography (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: The imaging features of TNBCs differ by AR status. Multimodality breast imaging may help identify the LAR subtype of TNBC, which has been shown to be a subtype that is relatively resistant to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Authors: Bruce G Haffty; Qifeng Yang; Michael Reiss; Thomas Kearney; Susan A Higgins; Joanne Weidhaas; Lyndsay Harris; Willam Hait; Deborah Toppmeyer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-11-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lisa A Carey; Charles M Perou; Chad A Livasy; Lynn G Dressler; David Cowan; Kathleen Conway; Gamze Karaca; Melissa A Troester; Chiu Kit Tse; Sharon Edmiston; Sandra L Deming; Joseph Geradts; Maggie C U Cheang; Torsten O Nielsen; Patricia G Moorman; H Shelton Earp; Robert C Millikan Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-06-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rebecca Dent; Maureen Trudeau; Kathleen I Pritchard; Wedad M Hanna; Harriet K Kahn; Carol A Sawka; Lavina A Lickley; Ellen Rawlinson; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: M Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; D Craig Allred; Karen L Hagerty; Sunil Badve; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Glenn Francis; Neil S Goldstein; Malcolm Hayes; David G Hicks; Susan Lester; Richard Love; Pamela B Mangu; Lisa McShane; Keith Miller; C Kent Osborne; Soonmyung Paik; Jane Perlmutter; Anthony Rhodes; Hironobu Sasano; Jared N Schwartz; Fred C G Sweep; Sheila Taube; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul Valenstein; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel Visscher; Thomas Wheeler; R Bruce Williams; James L Wittliff; Antonio C Wolff Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Basak E Dogan; Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo; Michael Gilcrease; Mark J Dryden; Wei Tse Yang Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Cornelia Liedtke; Chafika Mazouni; Kenneth R Hess; Fabrice André; Attila Tordai; Jaime A Mejia; W Fraser Symmans; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Bryan Hennessy; Marjorie Green; Massimo Cristofanilli; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ana Sofia Cerquido; Martin Vojtek; Rita Ribeiro-Oliveira; Salomé Gonçalves-Monteiro; Maria João Barroca; Aida Moreira da Silva; Olga Viegas; Victor Freitas; Joana Beatriz Sousa; Isabel M P L V O Ferreira; Carmen Diniz Journal: Curr Issues Mol Biol Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 2.976